Copyright
©2012 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jun 28, 2012; 18(24): 3156-3166
Published online Jun 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156
Published online Jun 28, 2012. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156
Included studies | Random sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blinding of participants and personnel | Blinding of outcome assessment | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting | Other bias |
Bansal et al[5], 2010 | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear risk | High risk | High risk | Unclear risk |
Rogers et al[24], 2010 | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear risk | High risk | Low risk | Low risk |
Rhodes et al[25], 1998 | Unclear risk | Unclear risk | High risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear risk |
Cuschieri et al[26], 1999 | Low risk | Unclear risk | High risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear risk |
Nathanson et al[27], 2005 | Low risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | High risk | Unclear risk |
Sgourakis et al[28], 2002 | High risk | Unclear risk | High risk | Unclear risk | High risk | High risk | Low risk |
Noble et al[29], 2009 | Low risk | Unclear risk | High risk | Unclear risk | Low risk | High risk | Low risk |
-
Citation: Lu J, Cheng Y, Xiong XZ, Lin YX, Wu SJ, Cheng NS. Two-stage
vs single-stage management for concomitant gallstones and common bile duct stones. World J Gastroenterol 2012; 18(24): 3156-3166 - URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v18/i24/3156.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v18.i24.3156